Fake John McCain may be worried parody accounts won't be protected.

Share this story

Arizona could soon become the latest state in the union to pass state legislation that would make online impersonation, or e-personation, a crime.

According to the Arizona Republic, State Rep. Michelle Ugenti, (R-Scottsdale) will introduce a bill that would make it a felony to use another person’s name with the intention to “harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten,” including spoofing an e-mail or text with similar devious motives.

The paper cited “about a dozen other states” that have similar legislation on the books, including California, Washington, New York, and Texas.

“If you’re going to impersonate someone and you’re going to threaten, harm or defraud them, it should be against the law because of the ramifications to the individual,” Ugenti told the paper.

That said, the state appears to already have existing laws on the books to deal with this problem. Last year, the paper added, "a disgruntled Gilbert parent created a fake profile of his son’s assistant principal on a pornographic website and chatted online under the administrator’s name." The man was convicted of two felonies and ordered to serve three months in jail as a result.

Clearly, though, the concern is that if the law is not defined narrowly enough, it could stifle legitimate speech like the Fake Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Twitter account.

“The problem with this, and other online impersonation bills, is the potential that they could be used to go after parody or social commentary activities,” Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation also told the paper via e-mail. “While this bill is written to limit ‘intent to harm,’ if that is construed broadly, there could be First Amendment problems.”

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

28 Reader Comments

Can't see this passing. I can see the point, but execution would lead to unintended consequences as noted in the article. Imagine all the future Weird Al Yancovic's, the parodies, the comedy shows like Saturday Night live with their many Presidential impersonations, would those comedians be prevented from using a public figure for their comedy or face a witch hunt and suppression of speech?

Increased protection for identity theft/impersonation would appear to be a good thing in light of how easy it is to create online identities. I am thinking specifically of the Megan Meier case, where a teenager's classmate's mom created a fake MySpace page pretending to be a teen boy in order to bully the girl, who later committed suicide as a result of all the harassment.

As long as freedom of speech can be maintained through careful crafting of regulation including defined rights for entertainment/parody of public figures, these laws are important in order to keep pace with technological advancement and protect individual identity rights.

Can't see this passing. I can see the point, but execution would lead to unintended consequences as noted in the article.

It'll pass. Arizona has a fairly streamlined political system, last I checked...doesn't one party control both houses and the executive?

Also, could lead to unintended consequences...not would. It's entirely possible that it won't be abused at all. That instead this will ensure that impersonation laws that already exist in the normal world are also applied consistently online.

Quote:

Imagine all the future Weird Al Yancovic's, the parodies, the comedy shows like Saturday Night live with their many Presidential impersonations, would those comedians be prevented from using a public figure for their comedy or face a witch hunt and suppression of speech?

Impersonation laws already exist, as mentioned in the article. Yet those comedic impersonations still happen. Imagine away, but the issue you describe is just that...imaginary.

After having lived in Arizona for a year now, I'm not too sure this one would be shot down. There's some odd ideas about what is and what is not stepping on Constitutional rights here. I really hope it doesn't pass for the aforementioned reasons of vaguery, but I'm really not going to be surprised at all if it does. Fortunately, I should only have one more year of being stuck in this state before I can jump ship, so even if it does pass I'm not going to concern myself over it too much.

That being said, in the last election, we had several state bills that were on the ballot for popular vote, and many of them were touted as great for the state and bolstering our freedoms by politicians and local media alike. However, the text of those bills were as problematic as this is looking to be, and they managed to not pass popular vote (I recall one of the news talking heads expressing surprise when one of the media darling bills failed on election night).

After having lived in Arizona for a year now, I'm not too sure this one would be shot down. There's some odd ideas about what is and what is not stepping on Constitutional rights here. I really hope it doesn't pass for the aforementioned reasons of vaguery, but I'm really not going to be surprised at all if it does. Fortunately, I should only have one more year of being stuck in this state before I can jump ship, so even if it does pass I'm not going to concern myself over it too much.

That being said, in the last election, we had several state bills that were on the ballot for popular vote, and many of them were touted as great for the state and bolstering our freedoms by politicians and local media alike. However, the text of those bills were as problematic as this is looking to be, and they managed to not pass popular vote (I recall one of the news talking heads expressing surprise when one of the media darling bills failed on election night).

Oh well. Hopefully we'll strike this down.

As mentioned in the article, plenty of states that are not Arizona have similar laws.

I'm primarily interested in looking at the current impersonation laws, and trying to figure out if/why this specific expansion of the law is needed. Is there some potential online behavior that doesn't meat the letter of the "regular" law, and thus isn't covered?

If the intention is "you’re going to threaten, harm or defraud them", and if this is enforced properly, then parody might be safe since no one's being threatened, harmed, or defrauded. Presumably. Maybe.

If the intention is "you’re going to threaten, harm or defraud them", and if this is enforced properly, then parody might be safe since no one's being threatened, harmed, or defrauded. Presumably. Maybe.

The problem is around the word "harm". If I satirize someone effectively, I could harm their reputation and income-making ability. That can count as "harm", legally. So the question is, does this law have protections like Libel laws here in the US (where if you can prove it's true, it isn't libel) or like in the UK (where it just has to be harmful, true or not)?

It seems to me that, in the name of protecting children, the true intent of this law is to give bastards with deep pockets yet another weapon to go after those who criticize them, comedians in particular.

- You have ruined my reputation as a businessman.- Businessman? You made a fortune selling crap to unsuspecting consumers.- Fair enough but after your impersonating me and ridiculing me sales went down. - This is the essence of comedy sir. It's protected by the First Amendment.- First Amendment my ass. This will cost you $50 million. - Ha! My net worth is what I'm wearing and an old beaten up truck. Good luck getting a dime from me.- 50 years in jail will teach you to go around ruining respectable businessmen.- Did you just say respectable?

My screen name, which I use in a few other places besides Ars, came about because it's what I used during Halo LAN parties back in the day. I don't have any parodic, satirical, comedic, harmful, slanderous/libelous, or other, intentions whatsoever. It amuses me is all.

Anyone want to speculate what could happen if the real TB got wind of my username and had an issue with it today? What about if this law were to pass in AZ, where I don't live? What about if it passed where I do live?

My screen name, which I use in a few other places besides Ars, came about because it's what I used during Halo LAN parties back in the day. I don't have any parodic, satirical, comedic, harmful, slanderous/libelous, or other, intentions whatsoever. It amuses me is all.

Anyone want to speculate what could happen if the real TB got wind of my username and had an issue with it today? What about if this law were to pass in AZ, where I don't live? What about if it passed where I do live?

It isn't just the "name". There is more than one "Tom Brokaw" in the United States. The issue is "impersonation" which is a totally different thing. I come down on the side of you should not be able to impersonate someone at all for any reason.

My screen name, which I use in a few other places besides Ars, came about because it's what I used during Halo LAN parties back in the day. I don't have any parodic, satirical, comedic, harmful, slanderous/libelous, or other, intentions whatsoever. It amuses me is all.

Anyone want to speculate what could happen if the real TB got wind of my username and had an issue with it today? What about if this law were to pass in AZ, where I don't live? What about if it passed where I do live?

I used to use the name "Bobby Dole" and permutations to run my gaming clan's diablo 2 armory account, back in the day. While on the account, I always referred to myself with the full name. I'd make public games and give away the junk items that members had chucked into the armory...but there was no way I intended a little sprite animation giving away virtual knives to be in any way grounded in reality - parody or otherwise - it was just funny.

I don't support this law. It'd be insane if there weren't already laws on the every states' books dealing with willfully malicious impersonation.

Can't see this passing. I can see the point, but execution would lead to unintended consequences as noted in the article. Imagine all the future Weird Al Yancovic's, the parodies, the comedy shows like Saturday Night live with their many Presidential impersonations, would those comedians be prevented from using a public figure for their comedy or face a witch hunt and suppression of speech?

Apples and oranges. There is a big difference between someone doing a parody of someone else and someone seriously trying to pass themselves off as that person.

Here is the California law. You need to credibly impersonate.a person to be in violation.

528.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any personwho knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates anotheractual person through or on an Internet Web site or by otherelectronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishablepursuant to subdivision (d). (b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible ifanother person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe,that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated. (c) For purposes of this section, "electronic means" shall includeopening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a socialnetworking Internet Web site in another person's name. (d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine notexceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in acounty jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine andimprisonment. (e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person whosuffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a)may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatorydamages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant toparagraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision(g) of Section 502. (f) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any otherlaw.

Wow ok...these laws are WAY off base from reality. It should not be a crime to impersonate. I'm not saying it's good behavior, but it's not something worthy of being against the law. The example about the person to impersonated the school official and framed them for a crime, well, the person doing the impersonating should be tried FOR THE ACTUAL CRIME not for the impersonation. Problem solved.